1. #ICANN50 Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) Activities Update to the GNSO Council ICANN-50 London Meeting 21 June 2014

2. Summary of Current Activities Review of GNSO WG Guidelines in relation to perceived limitation on the assigning of “Divergence” in situations where there is “Consensus Against” a proposed recommendation - Formal Consensus Call completed Propose language for Waiver to the 10-Day Motion Rule in the GNSO Operating Procedures - In final stages of completion for Consensus Call Propose language for Electronic Voting - In final drafting/discussion phase GOAL: Combine all proposed changes into a single Public Comment Forum 2 2 #ICANN50

3. Current Activities Consensus Levels: – Reviewed the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels concerning perceived limitation in the currently defined Consensus Levels when assigning “Divergence.” – Reached consensus on revision: Suggested footnote to be included in section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions that “Full consensus,” “Consensus,” and “Strong support but significant opposition” may also be used to signify levels of “consensus against” a particular recommendation. If this is the case, any “Minority View” will be in favor of the particular recommendation. 3 3 #ICANN50

4. Current Activities, Cont. Remote/Electronic Voting – Considering whether to create a procedure for the GNSO Council to hold a vote remotely. – Reviewing suggested revisions to the Operating Procedures. Waiver or Exception in the GNSO Operating Procedures – Considering whether there should be a procedure for the GNSO Council to waive or invoke an exception to its Operating Procedures with respect to the motion submission deadline. – Reviewing suggested revisions to the Operating Procedures 4 4 #ICANN50

5. Challenges & Discussion Points Ad hoc revisions of specific procedure/rule not ideal - E.g. current SCI proposal for Waiver language may mean revisiting just-approved, new Resubmission of a Motion procedure - In its WG Consensus Levels recommendation, SCI recommends reviewing GNSO Operating Procedures in their entirety - Should SCI take this on or should this be part of GNSO Review? Lack of active participation from all SG/Cs - Sometimes exacerbated by lack of familiarity of non-Councilors, inexperienced SCI members or non-WG participants with the intricacies of an issue or the Operating Procedures Better clarity and more detail in initial request to review preferred - Minimizes need to return to the Council for clarification 5 5 #ICANN50

6. Annex: Background on the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)

7. Background on the SCI Revised Charter approved 31 October 2013 by the GNSO Council Responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. – On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems – On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. 7 #ICANN50

8. Current Activities Consensus Levels – Background – Raised by the IGO-INGO in its final report: Possible limitation in the currently defined Consensus Levels when assigning “Divergence” to recommendations regarding acronym protections. Use of “Divergence” did not adequately represent the lack of support for the proposed recommendation when said recommendation was stated in the affirmative, for example “Do you support...?” Concern that not adhering to current Working Group Guidelines could introduce risk to the process, because “Consensus Against” is not formally defined. 8 8 #ICANN50

9. Thank You and Questions